I didn't mean to be partisan. I can see how you thought that I was, though. I mean, I never said McCain was right, I was simply getting at the fact that everyone said he was running a negative campaign with his attack's on Obama's policies, when Obama's positions on things don't exactly make sense haha. But yeah. And even if I *was* being partisan, the articles on most right-wing figures aren't exactly, um, nice and fair to them, either. But thank you; I respect your opinions.
Before I begin commenting on this article, I feel there is an obligation in my part to tell you that even as a non-American I do find your article a little partisan for my taste. Basically, it gives me the impression of being part of John McCain's Dairy of Bitter Election After-Thoughts. However, having ignored the first half of the article, everything seems to be just fine for me. Of course, a satirist is not required to be bipartisan or politically neutral or anything like that, but by putting yourself at the fore for some economic agenda that you are not obliged to support, you are basically risking being despised without a good reason. This is not the American right-wing version of the Huffington Post or anything of that nature, and people will likely be put off by your unpopular stance notwithstanding that you have got quite a few good gems to share. Yes, the US is going to face some serious deficits regardless, and the stimulus packages are not guaranteed to work at all, but then it's not really that hard to point out all these aspects of the reality without quoting or even mentioning John McCain and Sarah Palin. I was watching The Daily Show with Jon Stewart the other day, and, heck, wasn't it funny? Jon Stewart was basically making fun of everything Obama said at the Inarguation Ceremony and the infaturated crowd that was cheering at him, but I don't remember seeing Jon Stewart mentioning one single thing about the Republicans. Thus, there is really no excuse for you to say a single word about John McCain's failed election campaign, and you have pretty much failed at being a good satirist.
Like I said again, much of the stuff in your article is right on the money. Obama didn't do a single real thing before his inarguation, and magic is not going to happen overnight even with him officially becoming the President of the United States. Rhetorics are just rhetorics, and unless Obama is actually Jesus himself, pointless repeating of the word "change" isn't really going to make any difference to the reality. Hence, this is not really a time for celebration, and no one should be cheering over just some mere words coming out of a certain mouth. Even many political analysts are startled by the irrational attitude displayed by the American public on the Inarguation Day, and this is something you should be mentioning instead of, say, how McCain was so damn right or why people should have voted for someone who had an air-head from Alaska as his running mate. You aren't going to win over anyone by moaning for a well-deserved loser, and that is something you should be mindful of.
Prose and formatting:
I don't like your tone or your undue support for John McCain, but at least your article is quite presentable. Hence the score.
Most are well-chosen images saving the second one, which seems to shock people more than make them laugh. Hence the score.
Too much partisan mud-slinging in an otherwise decent and well-presented article. More focus should be put on what evidence suggests rather than what an opposing party had to say about certain facts.